HistoricalChristian.Faith

Why does Matthew say “spoken by the prophets” for the Nazarene saying?

Type: supporting argument (off-timeline) · Assessment: sound — Matthew’s “spoken by the prophets” (plural) is best read as a deliberate summary citation: not a quotation of any one verse — there is none — nor a slip or a fabrication, but a gathering-up of a general Old Testament expectation (a Messiah of despised, humble, unrecognized origin) that Nazareth’s obscurity fulfils. The reading is marked by Matthew’s own grammar: at the four places where he develops a theme rather than cites a text (2:23; 5:17; 26:54, 56) he switches to a plural or collective noun and drops the participle (“saying”) that heads his ten verse-specific fulfilments — a consistent, falsifiable pattern. The bare charge of an error thus fails: a summary of many prophets need not sit in any single one. What is genuinely underdetermined — and where several proponents overreach — is whether a particular proof-text also stands behind the wording: Isaiah 11:1’s netzer (“branch”), the Nazirite of Judges 13, or Isaiah 4:3’s “holy.” Those are each debatable; the summary reading does not need any of them, and the weakest resort of all — an appeal to a lost prophetic book — is an unfalsifiable guess the better reading makes unnecessary.

This is one instance of a recurring pattern — the Gospels naming one prophet, or “the prophets,” for a composite or unlocatable Old Testament citation (so too Mark 1:2, Matthew 27:9, and Matthew 13:35). The reception of that whole phenomenon, and the shared principle the fathers used to answer it, is traced on the Naming the Wrong Prophet timeline; the two sibling cruxes are weighed at Why Mark names Isaiah (Mark 1:2–3) and Why Matthew names Jeremiah (Matthew 27:9).

Related arguments: naming the prophet — see also Why Mark names Isaiah (Mark 1:2–3) · Why Matthew names Jeremiah (Matthew 27:9) · Why Matthew 13:35 names Isaiah for Asaph’s psalm (Matthew 13:35)

The claim

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.

— Matthew 2:23. Unlike the other three cruxes gathered on this timeline, the words “He shall be called a Nazarene” are found in no Old Testament verse at all — not in the prophet Matthew names (there is none named), and not, verbatim, anywhere else. The charge is the sharpest form of the whole difficulty: Matthew has ascribed to Scripture a prophecy Scripture does not contain, whether by careless memory or by inventing a proof for Jesus’ hometown.¹

Who advances it

That the ascription is intentional, not a blunder, is the ancient and mainstream reading; only the mechanism has been disputed. Jerome (c. 398) already fixed on the plural as the decisive clue — Matthew wrote “prophets” precisely to signal “that he did not take words from the Scriptures, but the meaning” — while also pointing to Isaiah 11:1’s netzer. Chrysostom (c. 390) and, following him, Theophylact (c. 1100) took a different tack, appealing to prophetic books since lost (Theophylact adding “an unwritten prophecy among the Jews”); Cyril of Alexandria and, later, Aquinas read “Nazarene” as “holy” (Daniel 9:24) or “flower/branch” (Isaiah 11:1; Song 2:1), gathered “from many passages.” In modern study the summary-of-a-theme reading is defended most fully by R. T. France and, on explicit grammatical grounds, by Jared M. August, who shows that Matthew’s own citation formulae sort into two consistent types; the older single-proof-text proposals (Isaiah 11:1; the Nazirite of Judges 13; Isaiah 4:3) are represented by Davies & Allison, Carson, Menken, Longenecker, and others.²

The evidence for a deliberate summary citation

Matthew flags it with his own grammar. Matthew has fourteen “formula-citations” (“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken…”), and they divide cleanly into two groups. In the ten that quote a specific verse he uses a singular noun (“the prophet”) and the participle “saying” (legontos) — 1:22; 2:15, 17; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:14, 35; 21:4; 27:9. In the four that develop a theme he uses a plural or collective noun and drops the participle — 2:23 (“the prophets,” tōn prophētōn), 5:17 (“the prophets”), and 26:54, 56 (“the scriptures,” “the scriptures of the prophets”). The rule holds with no exceptions across the Gospel, and it is telling that even at 27:9 — where Matthew demonstrably combines Zechariah 11 with Jeremiah — he keeps the singular “Jeremy the prophet” rather than switching to the plural. So the plural at 2:23 is not loose speech; it is Matthew’s deliberate signal that he is summing up an expectation, not quoting a text. A summary needs no single verse. Once the plural is read this way, the “no such verse exists” objection dissolves: the whole point of the formula is that Nazareth’s obscurity answers a broad prophetic hope of a lowly, rejected Messiah — the humbled shepherd of Zechariah 9–14, the righteous sufferer of Psalms 22 and 69, the despised servant of Isaiah 52–53. As France put it, “it is Nazareth’s very absence from the Old Testament which makes it a fitting fulfilment of this Old Testament theme.” The convention is documented. Naming “the prophets” for a gathered sense rather than a single wording is the same recognized ancient technique — combined, conflated, condensed, and summarized citation — that stands behind the Mark 1:2 and Matthew 27:9 cases, catalogued across ancient Jewish, Greco-Roman, and Christian writing by Adams and Ehorn. Matthew is using a known idiom, not covering a slip.³

Does a single proof-text also stand behind it?

Three candidates have long competed to supply the actual wording; each has real support and a real weakness, and the summary reading is strengthened, not threatened, by the fact that none is decisive on its own.

Isaiah 11:1 — the netzer (“branch”). The Hebrew of Isaiah 11:1 (“there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a netzer shall grow out of his roots”) gives a genuine consonantal play on Nəṣer/Nazōraios, and it carries a messianic sense the other candidates lack; Jerome saw it, and it remains the strongest word-link. Its limit is that the play is invisible in Greek: the Septuagint renders netzer not with any naz- word but with rhiza (“root”), so no Greek-speaking reader of Matthew could have recovered the connection without the Hebrew — and the vocalization of Nazōraios does not map cleanly onto netzer either. A live allusion for the evangelist, then, but not a citation his own audience could verify. Judges 13–16 — the Nazirite / a second Samson. The angel tells Samson’s mother the boy will be “a Nazirite unto God from the womb” (Judges 13:5, 7; 16:17); Menken argued this is the primary source, the plural “prophets” pointing to the “former prophets” (which include Judges). The overreach here is plain and Carson names it: Jesus was demonstrably not a Nazirite — he drank wine and touched the dead (Luke 7:33–34; Matthew 9:25), both disqualifying under the vow of Numbers 6 — so a “second Samson” reading rests on a category Jesus does not fit, and the Greek would again have to bridge a bare sound-echo. Isaiah 4:3 — “shall be called holy.” Some (Davies & Allison) make Isaiah 4:3 primary, since “Nazarene” was glossed “holy” from Jerome and Cyril onward (“Nazarene is interpreted holy”); but that swaps “holy” for “Nazarene” with no lexical warrant and still leaves the place-name Nazareth unaccounted for. Each proposal, in short, can supply an allusion but not a clean citation — which is exactly what a summary formula predicts.⁴

Adversarial assessment

What holds. The intentionality of the plural is well established, and on independent grounds: Matthew’s formula-citations sort into a specific-verse type (singular noun + participle) and a thematic type (plural/collective noun, no participle) without exception, and 2:23 sits squarely in the second — a falsifiable pattern that has not been falsified. That places the burden on the error-charge, which cannot explain why Matthew would signal a theme by grammar he uses nowhere else for a mistaken quotation. The summary reading also needs no missing verse, which is its chief strength over the patristic “lost book” resort; and it converges with the same composite/summary-citation convention that resolves the sibling cases. This is the mainstream direction of modern Matthean study, and the fathers who felt the difficulty most (Jerome above all) already read the plural as deliberate.

What is overstated or imprecise. Three overreaches should be flagged, none fatal to the reading itself. (1) The lost-prophetic-book answer of Chrysostom and Theophylact is an unfalsifiable conjecture — it can neither be checked nor refuted, and the summary reading makes it needless; it is the weakest of the ancient options. (2) Proponents who pin the verse on a single proof-text overclaim: the Isaiah 11:1 netzer play is invisible in Greek (LXX rhiza) and phonetically imperfect, and the Nazirite reading founders on the plain fact that Jesus kept no Nazirite vow — so “Matthew is quoting Isaiah 11:1” or “Matthew calls Jesus a second Samson” states more than the evidence bears. (3) At the other edge, France’s “pure theme, no allusion” is itself a touch strong: a Hebrew-competent evangelist may well have heard the netzer resonance even while writing a summary. The honest result is that that the plural is a deliberate summary is secure; which, if any, proof-text also colours the wording is not — and the reading stands without settling it.⁵

Assessment

Sound. Matthew’s “spoken by the prophets” is best read as a deliberate summary citation — a gathering of the Old Testament expectation of a lowly, despised, unrecognized Messiah, which Nazareth’s obscurity fulfils — not as a misremembered verse or an invented proof. The reading is grammatically marked by Matthew himself (plural noun, no participle, exactly as in his other thematic fulfilments), matches a documented ancient convention, and needs no single locatable text, so the bare-error charge is the weaker verdict. It is a shade softer than the Mark 1:2 and Matthew 27:9 cases only because there is no locatable source at all — but that absence is precisely what the summary reading predicts and absorbs. What stays genuinely open is narrow and secondary: whether a particular proof-text (Isaiah 11:1’s netzer the strongest, the Nazirite and Isaiah 4:3 weaker, a lost book weakest of all) also stands behind the wording — a question underdetermined among the candidates, not a crack in the reading.

Sources